On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 at 11:20, bkil wrote:
>
> I don't feel it's fair to overload Commons by shifting the costs of all of
> our street level imagery to them.
>
It would be unfair to Commons by treating them as an alternative to
Mapillary
or OpenStreetCam. Also pretty much against their policy,
This video explains it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uj6uR3fp-U
Basically IPFS is a protocol, just like how http is protocol.
IPFS is meant to create a torrent like network of data. Every piece of data
is linked to a hash which identifies that piece of data.
Anybody can help host data on
Can you elaborate on how IPFS would work? From my understanding, if I add a
file (in this case an image) to my node then a unique address is generated. But
the file is only permanently stored on my node unless someone else manually
pins it on theirs?
Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
> On 27
I would assume that this is unwanted based on my above citations from
their scope document. Was this not your reading on this question? Although,
if we ask, they _may_ decide to change their scope based on our needs, but
as estimated, this would greatly increase their expenses.
On Thu, Aug 27,
I would ask on Commons whatever it would be acceptable, I would not just assume
that
this is unwanted.
Aug 27, 2020, 12:18 by bkil.hu...@gmail.com:
> Then there's OpenTrailView as a viable alternative (neither Mapillary, nor
> OpenStreetCam has a free server component), although in the long
Then there's OpenTrailView as a viable alternative (neither Mapillary, nor
OpenStreetCam has a free server component), although in the long term, I
think we should follow an IPFS, P2P or federated-systems route to scale
costs.
I don't feel it's fair to overload Commons by shifting the costs of
"by policy they _should_ delete the lower quality image if a better quality
image is also available"only when it is an exact duplicate - not just photo of
the same object
Aug 26, 2020, 21:45 by bkil.hu...@gmail.com:
> Didn't we have an OSM tool in the past that showed points with broken links?
- I'm doubtful of the future of openstreetcam
- some people don't like Facebook to the point where they don't want to use
mapillary so we need to have an alternative
And that still doesn't solve the problem of not having a system to put
multiple images into one tag
Cheers
Thibault
On Thu, Aug
Have you considered uploading these to OpenStreetCam, Mapillary or whatever
comes after OSM migrates away from that one?
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 26. Aug 2020, at 15:21, Jake Edmonds via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
sent from a phone
> On 26. Aug 2020, at 15:21, Jake Edmonds via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I meant that images of generic drinking fountains can go in ‘Drinking
> fountains in ’ and only need one image linked to the node.
> A unique fountain deserves its own category
I named the
CJ,
I didn't realize the accept header could work like that.
I think the system your propose is a good idea tbh.
Also, I wonder if it would be possible to host those on IPFS. (And make it
so that people who have spare bandwidth/storage can help host this image
repository)
Cheers,
Thibault
On
Didn't we have an OSM tool in the past that showed points with broken
links? (Also I think the citations I've given earlier a few hours ago
should clear up what should or should not be deleted - by policy they
_should_ delete the lower quality image if a better quality image is also
available)
On
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 09:58 +0200, Thibault Molleman wrote:
> That's a good idea actually!
> Although I guess there is a part of me that thinks that having just a
> simple image tag without any fancy stuff is still best for a primary
> image (so that apps that want to implement it don't need to
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 19:39, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
>
> In practice you need horrific image quality,
> to the point of unasibility for deletion to
> succeed
>
So maybe the chance of deletion is low enough that we can drop the
argument that "wikimedia might delete it" when discussing using
26 Aug 2020, 20:34 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 18:03, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> Though note that in practice that it is fairly rare to delete things as out
>> of scope.
>>
>
> That's true. But the spectre of it happening
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 18:03, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Though note that in practice that it is fairly rare to delete things as
> out of scope.
>
That's true. But the spectre of it happening is raised whenever people
mention
using wikimedia images.
Though note that in practice that it is fairly rare to delete things as out of
scope.
It is typically done for people uploading their private images in attempt to use
Wikimedia Commons as free storage, or for hosting their advertisements
and for things like
yeah, having a bot to automatically mark images that are being used in osm
sounds like a good solution tbh.
(next step would be to have a bot that automatically checks the Deletion
Request pages to see if any of the one being added there are osm linked
ones and make a copy to ipfs or something
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 16:26, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Summary#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose
>
> "hosts content that is useful for educational purposes.
> This means
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Summary#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose
"hosts content that is useful for educational purposes.
This means content that could be used by Wikipedia,
other Wikimedia projects, or other projects that provide
knowledge,
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 14:52, Thibault Molleman
wrote:
> Does it being on osm have enough justification for them to keep it though?
> "it's not a wikimedia project, so it doesn't matter to us if it's linked
> on osm or not"
>
They make use of OSM data to create their own maps, so there is
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 12:17, Thibault Molleman
wrote:
the main use case for having multiple images on one node was for example a
store, and you've just taken random images of the store (like you have on
Google maps and other map apps)
You may get pushback from the "OSM is not a gazetteer"
Does it being on osm have enough justification for them to keep it though?
"it's not a wikimedia project, so it doesn't matter to us if it's linked on
osm or not"
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 15:39, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:06, Thibault Molleman <
> thibaultmolle...@gmail.com>
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:06, Thibault Molleman
wrote:
> Ah, I feel like there are certain images that might get deleted from
> Commons just because they don't "contribute to wikipedia articles".
>
The commons isn't quite that arbitrary. They allow images which are of
interest, but "of
> The fact that the image is linked to an osm node is enough reason for the
> image to be online.
Sorry, I meant that images of generic drinking fountains can go in ‘Drinking
fountains in ’ and only need one image linked to the node.
A unique fountain deserves its own category
Sent from Jake
Btw, I want to make it clear that I have nothing against the wikimedia
foundation. I think it's fair that they moderate like they do, because
their capacity isn't unlimited
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 14:51 Thibault Molleman
wrote:
> Can you link photos/deletion requests?
>
> Again, don't bother with
>
> Can you link photos/deletion requests?
Again, don't bother with that. I was 13, didn't know what I was doing, main
reason why they were deleted according to the deletion requests were
because they didn't have a license attached to them, so they didn't know if
it was even allowed on there.
I feel like those examples (city gates and fountains) would be appropriate
places to use a wikimedia category.
Assuming the drinking fountains are unique, if not then do they need multiple
photos?
Thanks
Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
> On 26 Aug 2020, at 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
> On 26. Aug 2020, at 12:18, bkil wrote:
>
> there is usually no need for more than one image on a POI
I have recently tagged some city gates and both sides would have been
interesting. The other kind of POI I am frequently taking photos are fountains
and drinking
Can you link photos/deletion requests?
Or talk page with deletion info? Maybe your country has no freedom of panorama
and large part of photo was with something copyrighted?
Or maybe there was no description?
When I asked about photos of bicycle parkings.
(such as
Yeah, makes sense.
Having ipfs be a valid image/file tag in osm would be a nice addition
actually!
the main use case for having multiple images on one node was for example a
store, and you've just taken random images of the store (like you have on
Google maps and other map apps)
I do wonder
> [...] Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. [...]
> File in use in another Wikimedia project [...] [OR]
> File in use on Commons only: An otherwise non-educational file does not
acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page
or in a category on
I didn't share my viewpoint yet here. In my opinion, there is usually no
need for more than one image on a POI (two at worst), so I don't see a
need. If you want to photograph each entrance of a school, why don't you
attach each photo to the respective entrance? If you made photographs of
each
Ah ok, I had a bunch of my images deleted that I uploaded when i was a kid
(maybe not the smartest thing to do at the time.)
They were birthday photos and put them up cause figured it could work as
stock photos (remember one site actually using one of them) and they got
deleted a couple years ago.
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:04, Thibault Molleman
wrote:
>
> Ah, I feel like there are certain images that might get deleted from Commons
> just because they don't "contribute to wikipedia articles".
That is not a valid reason for deletion from Wikimedia Commons.
Commons' scope is far wider than
Ah, I feel like there are certain images that might get deleted from
Commons just because they don't "contribute to wikipedia articles".
Maybe a special example but still:
Recently mapped a construction zone for a residential area and took a
couple photos. Those might not "belong on Commons"
No, I was thinking about linking Wikimedia Commons galleries.
(such linking also happens indirectly when wikipedia/wikidata tags get added)
Aug 26, 2020, 10:42 by thibaultmolle...@gmail.com:
> I think what Mateusz was referring to was seeing if we could somehow copy the
> system that commons
As mentioned on the linked wiki page, you can escape a semicolon by
doubling it:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator#Escaping_with_.27.3B.3B.27
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 9:11 AM Thibault Molleman <
thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While I use the semicolon for some
I think what Mateusz was referring to was seeing if we could somehow copy
the system that commons uses?
(so that any app that can already accept wikimedia commons galleries also
can use this new system)
Cheers
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:31, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
sent from a phone
> On 26. Aug 2020, at 10:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> See wikimedia_commons that may linki wikimedia commons
> gallery.
there are quite some links in “image” for wikimedia commons categories (but not
all images in a category may be relevant for osm), a
See wikimedia_commons that may linki wikimedia commons
gallery.
Aug 26, 2020, 09:33 by me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk:
> As mentioned semi colon has issues with URLs. It may also be worth
> noting that a OSM value can only have 254 chars in it, a limit that
> would get hit quickly with a
That's a good idea actually!
Although I guess there is a part of me that thinks that having just a
simple image tag without any fancy stuff is still best for a primary image
(so that apps that want to implement it don't need to start messing with
this new format and can just load that simple url.
As mentioned semi colon has issues with URLs. It may also be worth
noting that a OSM value can only have 254 chars in it, a limit that
would get hit quickly with a few URLs.
I've thought about this before, I think we need 1 URL to point to
multiple images. But it can't just be a non standard HTML
While I use the semicolon for some other tags already, the problem with
using it for something that has a URL.
Is that TECHNICALLYaccording to the specification, a URL can contain a
semicolon.
So I feel like the use of a semicolon in a url based tag isn't a good
solution
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020,
If someone really needs multiple images on one object then
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator
is standard.
At the same time use for that seems dubious for this specific tag.
Aug 26, 2020, 07:41 by thibaultmolle...@gmail.com:
> Hi,
>
> It seems like there (still)
45 matches
Mail list logo
